Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

by bohm 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  hooberus: Yes, i see your point. but here i was discussing if the mitochondrial eve provides evidence towards creation, and it does not.

  how strong evidence it provide towards evolution can be debated, and i understand your point about calibration; but adam and eve cannot be saved just by recallibration mtdna rates, as midget says there are other methods of getting it and an estimate than pedigree methods, and creation run into troubles when it eg. has to explain why neanderthal mtdna look so different from humans.
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus

  Using the human-chimp divergence and the amount of genetic differences between them isn't the only way to get an estimate for the mit DNA mutation rate. I'm not sure if you know this or are just ignoring data that doesn't completely side with your own view.

  I used the phrases "generally" and "frequenty" to denote the usual phylogenetic [evolution based] methodology used in such calculations, which of couse implies other less used methods exist that don't necessarily use this assumption.

  Another way they calculated an average mutation rate for mitochondrial dna was by looking at the genetic data of people (like the Aborigines of Australia) whose ancestors migrated to an area at reasonably well known points in time. So even if we put the human-chimp divergence point method aside, they can get an estimate for the rate.

  Lets assume the rate from this method is faster (even ten times faster). It would still mean humans have been here longer than the 6,000 or 7,000 years believed by creationists who adhere to a literal reading of Genesis.

  I'm sure if you check that you will find that these "reasonably well known" points in time, are themselves calculated by the use of uniformitarian dating, which also contain assumptions inconsistent with Biblical history to begin with.
• 

  hooberus

  Evolutionists would do well to examine mutation rate problems with the evolutionary story. The book "Genetic entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" lays these out in a relatively understandable format.

  It also contains a useful appendix with [shocking] citations from recent evolutionary journals. For example just the mutation rate of the mitochondrial DNA (only 1 / 200,000th of the genome ! ) should have led "to extinction of the evolutionary line leading to humans withing 20 million years" Loewe, L. 2006. Quantifying the genome decay parardox due to Muller's ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. Genetics Research 87:133-159.

  The book is available from http://ww.creationresearch.org. I have read it and It is excellent.

  There is also a new DVD "The Mystery of Our Declining Genes" which features similar material. According to the site:

  The science of genetics is proving to be a powerful tool for creationists. Geneticist, Dr. John Sanford, shows that with a conservative estimate of the mutation rate today, and the fact that good mutations are very rare, natural selection causes a decrease in fitness with time. Every organism is decaying faster than good mutations accumulate. This is called genetic entropy and falsifies evolution, but upholds the young earth model. Sanford shows how the computer model, called Mendel’s Accountant, dramatically and powerfully falsifies evolution.
• 

  hooberus

  here is the correct link to the Creation Research Societyhttp://www.creationresearch.org
• 

  bohm

  hooberus: You do realise that John Sanfords program where he explore his ideas and show how humans will die out has been torn to schreds because it made several nonphysical assumptions, and contained a bug? His book did not fare a lot better...

  About the article, note this form the conclusion:

  We need more precise estimates of the basic par-
  ameters in mtDNA, including the mutation rate
  in the coding region, the extent of mutation rate
  heterogeneity, potential low levels of recombination
  and the distribution of deleterious mutational e?ects.
  These may allow more detailed predictions of the
  molecular signatures (Charlesworth & Charlesworth,
  2000) of decaying populations and may elucidate
  the solutions to the genomic decay paradox in
  human mtDNA, if combined with models that
  include more details like rate heterogeneity, di?er-
  ent mutational e?ects (Butcher, 1995), rare recom-
  bination (McVean & Charlesworth, 2000) and
  spatial structure (Higgins & Lynch, 2001). It will
  be thrilling to see which of the various potential
  solutions actually solves the genomic decay paradox

  in mtDNA.

  the article propose a number of different solutoins to the apparent paradox. notice this is not only a problem for humans: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/88

  The problem with dr. Sanfords argument is, amongst other things, that these phenomenon should be present in all animals, including eg. rats or mice which has a much smaller generation length than humans and would therefore allready have died out. Also note that his primary field is not evolution but genetics.
• 

  MissingLink

  The scientist who labeled her "Eve" deserves a kick in the nuts for causing confusion.
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus: You do realise that John Sanfords program where he explore his ideas and show how humans will die out has been torn to schreds because it made several nonphysical assumptions, and contained a bug? His book did not fare a lot better...

  . . . Also note that his primary field is not evolution but genetics.

  A common tactic practiced by internet evolutionists here (and elsewhere) is to almost always attempt to immediately discredit all anti-evolutionary books and their authors- (the fact that they have never heard of them before, or read their material seeems to be no problem). See my 5th post on the below thread for other examples of evolutionists here doing the same on another book: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/170038/1/The-Book-Evolutionists-DONT-Want-You-To-Read By the way, one of the things genetics studies is evolution.
• 

  agonus

  Right. Ad homs on both sides help no-one. Haven't we learned anything from the WT?
• 

  bohm

  well, http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-i.html and http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-ii.html . which scientists, whos primary field WAS evolution, confirmed his results? i doubt a person whos primary field was evolution would get much press if he said some basic theory of plant genetics was wrong..

  The reason why i have a hard time trusting sanford is because of his program, Mendells accountant. I a bit about it when I found his book because GA interest me. Basically he rigged his program to fail. If human population will crash as his program predicts, mice and bacteria would have suffered a similar crash a long time ago because of their short generation length.

  When you create a simulation, and you select models for the propability mutations are beneficial, that simulation must be tested toward real-world data. He has to my knowledge never done that. Here is a nice thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128149&page=14
• 

  bohm

  HOOBERUS: I wanted to provide some more info, try to read this article: http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794 . here dr. Thomas Schneider give a example where the information content in the genomen increase.